[utternerd]

It explicitly said in the article that he pulled out a gun. He shouldn't have been swatted, obviously. That said, if you pull out a gun when police are responding to what they believe is an active shooter, the chances of you being shot are extremely high.

Additionally consider what would have happened if this had been an active shooting and they simply disregarded the phone call.

[autoexec]

> It explicitly said in the article that he pulled out a gun.

A gun that he legally owned and had every right to have on his person as an unknown individual was breaking into his home. If police don't identify themselves they should expect an armed population to meet them with guns in hand. It's their responsibility to assess the situation, understand who the occupants are, and respond appropriately. Smashing a bedroom window with a shovel and then "indiscriminately" firing into it is not a reasonable response.

[utternerd]

Good to see HN has changed their tune on gun ownership and defense. Until we see bodycam footage we're all basing our opinions entirely on what his lawyer is saying. Video will come out with a FOIA, but everyone will have moved on.

[autoexec]

There are arguments to be made about regulations and the problems we face because of the number of guns in this country, but as long as we have a right to own them the possession of one can't be used as an excuse to execute someone

[tverbeure]

It also says that he heard glass breaking, thought they were criminals, grabbed a gun and hid behind a door.

If you’re going to mention the gun fact, why not provide the whole context?

[utternerd]

I assumed everyone also read the article if they're commenting on it, but I fail to see what additional that context that adds; I can't imagine he was pulling it out because it was time to oil it. Police were responding to an active shooter call, and this guy pulled out a gun.

[happytoexplain]

The implication of your original post is that he behaved negligently, when clearly the additional context shows that he did not. You're writing in bad faith.

[anigbrowl]

The article suggests that he wasn't aware it was the police that broke into his house, and indeed having called the police and told them he was at risk of swatting it was logical to assume it would not be the police. I am unclear why police decided to coverly break in via a bathroom window rather than the more usual procedure of shining lights into the front windows and telling people to come out of the house.

[tverbeure]

> I assumed everyone also read the article if they're commenting on it, ...

You must be new to The Internet. :-)

> I fail to see what additional that context that adds

You may not have intended it sound like that, but your comment felt like classic victim blaming, which is all too common in the cases of police incompetence.

[utternerd]

Details matter, and details like "he pulled out a gun" are not inconsequential.

[tverbeure]

> he pulled out a gun" are not inconsequential.

Yes, you already mentioned that?

[marssaxman]

When you have violent intruders breaking into your house through the window, it's reasonable that "these must be police officers, here to arrest me over a misunderstanding, and I should calmly cooperate with them so I won't be hurt" might not be the first thought which comes to mind.

[clovoak]

I suspect he pulled it out because he heard someone breaking into his house.

[nomel]

From TFA:

> Melendez did grab a "legal, registered" gun once he heard the glass shatter, Sethi said, but he ducked behind a partially closed door.

> He believed someone connected to the hackers was breaking in, Sethi added.

[exabrial]

No. You are beyond wrong. Personal firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right, just as protection from unreasonable search (as this was). Arming oneself when someone breaks into your house is beyond reasonable. Police should expect residents to be armed and shouldn't be breaking into residences.

And please, stop blaming the victim.

[utternerd]

It is factually accurate that he pulled out a weapon when police were responding to an active shooter call.

[happytoexplain]

Nobody is calling your facts wrong. They are criticizing your post. You wrote as if criticizing the victim for their decision to pull a gun. If you did not mean to do that, you should simply state that. If you did mean to do that, then you are ignoring what people are saying in favor of pretending they are denying the simple facts of your post. You are being evasive in both cases - whichever it is.

[hamper653]

Why are there so many guns in this God-forsaken country? Why did local cops respond to an active shooting call? Why did they enter the house, instead of waiting for a specially trained team? Why did the victim have a gun?

[krapp]

>Why are there so many guns in this God-forsaken country?

Surplus arms after World War 2 led to the creation of the gun industry in the US, and thanks to the Second Amendment and the power of the gun lobby, its relationship with the Republican Party, and decades of popular media making them cool, that's a guaranteed untouchable industry.

> Why did they enter the house, instead of waiting for a specially trained team?

What "specially trained team?" That was the specially trained team. They're specially trained to break down doors and shoot people.

Americans get the policing they vote for, and they consistently vote for tacticool cowboys with Punisher tattoos and against... anything less than more of that.

There is probably a relationship between this and the first question.

>Why did the victim have a gun?

Self defense, presumably, as is his Constitutional right.

[hamper653]

> What "specially trained team?" That was the specially trained team.

Weren’t they some local cops? In my country there is a handful of police teams specialised in hostage situations and the like. In case of an "active shooting", local cops would typically establish a perimeter until these guys come and handle the situation (without deaths if possible, although they are sharp shooters).

[krapp]

OK I assumed it was a SWAT team, I didn't read the article closely enough, my fault. I'll take the hit for that.

But if it had been... the result still would have been the same. American police aren't trained to de-escalate, SWAT less so.

[exabrial]

Which also, is literally not a crime. Don't blame the victim.

[tzs]

> Which also, is literally not a crime

I believe that the person you are responding to is arguing wisdom, not legality.